The Sauk Centre herald. (Sauk Centre, Stearns County, Minn.) 1886-current, 1887-08-18
THE MELROSE MATTER.

x0xA4 A@4ss
Elsewhere will be found state
ment of the latest phase of the
school troubles in Melrose. There is
"a bitterness of feeling between the
contesting factions that bodies no
good to the future welfare Of the viii
age. The TACT of its being in a
measure a religious warfare adds to
its fierceness and the animosities are
increasing daily.
The opponents Of the public schools
will sooner or later realize the grave
mistake they have made in arraying
themselves against that Institution
which, above almost every other, is
dearest to the American heart, the
public school system.
The Globe of Tuesday publishes a
communication which purports to
speak for the opposition, and if that
is all that may be urged in expla.
nation and extenuation, the position
of Father Williams and his parish
oners is wholly untenable, and the
movement is entitled to and will re.
ceive the unqualified condemnation
of every patriotic citizen. 1t says:
With the disgruntled parties at Melrose the
writer of this has nothing TO do; it probably is
true that the Catholic priest In that place took
particular trouble to have the school term
voted down. Rat II does not at all follow from
his course that he Is possessed Of "indiscreet
sectarian xsal" ae the p. p. puts 1t, nor Is your
editorial ON the question necessarily correct con-
sidered from different standpoint. They
blame the Catholic priest Of the place for the
great interes he took In assisting to vote down
the term Of the Melrose public school, they
blame him for canvassing his parish and urging
his parishiners TO help him effect that object.
Now this Is, leaving aside all Inconsistencies,
the sum and substance Of their comploint.
The correspondent fairly states the
issue, and it may be conceded that
tho "sum and substance of the COM
plant" is rs indicated. But upon
these premises the action Of the
priest and his fellow.voters against
the longer school term is wholly un.
warranted. He continues:
The Catholic ::side of the school question is
simply this: They, the Catholics, Know that the
famous" public schools of our country are col
orless In regard TO religion, they believe In
popular education" but not OF the kind i'm
parted in our public schools; they believe thai
an education of the intellect alone will make
smart men, but not good men and exemplary
citizens; that to create good citizen of this re-
public an education of the moral faculties is al.
so required: in word, their belief is that educa-
ton without religion is not only more than
failure, but in many instances q curse Most of
the recent "boodlers" were well educated, in
the public school sense of that term, but still
they were not faithful public servants and good
citizens, because they lacked the education of
the heart. Now we Catholics try to give our
children thorough and genuine education, en-
bracmg not only the cultivation of the mental
but also of the morGl faculties, aud the latter
we consider the more essential.
He disingenuously begs the entire
question upon a statement of prem
Uses wholly false. Until he shows
that the "boodlers" were educated
in the public schools and not in par.
ochial schools, and that their crimes
are the natural outgrowth of such
education, he fails to establish foot.
hold at all. 1t is a notorious fact
that the great majority of these alder
men are Catholics, and presumably
Were educated in paroehial schools.
But it does not follow that their
highly colored religious education is
responsible for their crimes. That
would be as senseless and wicked an
argument as the one attempted by
the defender of the Melrose icono.
clasts. They are dishonest men and
bad citizens, not because Of their ed.
ucation, but In spite of it.
The friends of free schools are
content to rest the RECITATION of the
argument upon comparison of the
character and record Of men for in
tegrity and good citizenship educat.
ed in the public schools on the one
hand and those educated in parochial
schools on the other.
But the true animus seems to be
disclosed in what follows and stamps
the entire proceedings as impatriot.
ic and selfish to the last degree:
We take upon ourselves the burden of sup
porting our conscience" schools, and the bur-
den of supporting the public schools is simulta-
neously forced upon us. Does, then, the moral
support which the Catholics deny the public
school system make them poorer citizens? But
the only reason why they do not withhold their
pecuniary support Is because they are forced to
contribute it, having the majority against them
ut the polls. VIII, should there be such indig-
nation about voting down the term of public
schools? If the Catholics can legitimately rid
themselves of burdensome and, to them, useless
taxation, why shouldn't they accept their OPP
portunityl
Under this reasoning all taxation
may be voided providing COM
munity feels that it has no use for
the. machinery of government, of
which the public school is branch.
AS well argue that man takes upon
himselfth burden of supporting and
managing his own family and person
al affairs, hence has perfect right to
refuse to support the public paupers.
criminals and insane, or the affairs
of the state and nation. 1t is the
argument of supreme selfishness as
against good citizenship.
To conclude and emphasize this
indefensible position the correspond.
ent says:
i can't understand why an opponent of the
public schools or Of popular education" should
be regarded as a traitor to American govern
ment." You say the action of the Melrose cler-
gyman will expose his church to unjust refiec-
tions." Why should it? The question is sim.
ply an economical one. The Catholics do not
desire to avail themselves Of the public schools
and therefore build private parochial schools,
in which also a popular but, at the same
time religious education is impaired. If they
can shoulder off the distributive cost of support
ing the public schools, where is the wrong in